Sure looks so. The question is, can the 1060 or 1070 beat it? In equally positive news, it seems people move up the SKU ladder. Better systems for gaming rather than worse. So we can push the gaming and GPU boundaries.

It's not accurate for AMD, some of the 200-series still poll as their HD7000 counterparts. I imagine the same is true for 300 vs 200 series.
The only accurate data is to sum all of them together for a total representation, you can't look at individual GPUs.

Case in point: According to Steam, there are 24x as many GTX 970s as R9 390s. Even if we're generous to Nvidia and assume 4:1 sales over the same time period, the GTX 970 is 2 years old vs 1 year on the R9 390, which makes 8x.

Also according to them, the 980 Ti outnumbers the 380 & 390 combined and doubled (or 4x as many as the 380 by itself). Doubt it.

It's not accurate for AMD, some of the 200-series still poll as their HD7000 counterparts. I imagine the same is true for 300 vs 200 series.
The only accurate data is to sum all of them together for a total representation, you can't look at individual GPUs.

Case in point: According to Steam, there are 24x as many GTX 970s as R9 390s. Even if we're generous to Nvidia and assume 4:1 sales over the same time period, the GTX 970 is 2 years old vs 1 year on the R9 390, which makes 8x.

Also according to them, the 980 Ti outnumbers the 380 & 390 combined and doubled (or 4x as many as the 380 by itself). Doubt it.

Click to expand...

I think you need a wake-up call. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Nvidia cards are pretty much seen as the only option by most gamers and OEMs. Its difficult to find one Dell, HP, Acer, or any other major OEM that supplies AMD cards in their desktops. AMD has really destroyed their image by having terrible marketing and being one step behind.

I would wager that more 970s were sold in a month than AMD GPUs for a year.

This is the problem AMD needs to solve, because its only getting worse.

I think you need a wake-up call. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Nvidia cards are pretty much seen as the only option by most gamers and OEMs. Its difficult to find one Dell, HP, Acer, or any other major OEM that supplies AMD cards in their desktops. AMD has really destroyed their image by having terrible marketing and being one step behind.

I would wager that more 970s were sold in a month than AMD GPUs for a year.

This is the problem AMD needs to solve, because its only getting worse.

Click to expand...

I don't know what the exact numbers are but I can tell you for a fact that AMD AIBs are lazy and the vbioses misreport GPU names.
I had three different 280X's and they all reported as 7970 GHz.

A large portion of Steam's "390" and "380" GPUs are probably lumped into the 290 and 285 categories, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the cards had weird names and Steam didn't detect them at all. You can see on the list a lot of them are simply listed as "R9 200 Series" etc with no clarifier at all.

It's not accurate for AMD, some of the 200-series still poll as their HD7000 counterparts. I imagine the same is true for 300 vs 200 series.
The only accurate data is to sum all of them together for a total representation, you can't look at individual GPUs.

Case in point: According to Steam, there are 24x as many GTX 970s as R9 390s. Even if we're generous to Nvidia and assume 4:1 sales over the same time period, the GTX 970 is 2 years old vs 1 year on the R9 390, which makes 8x.

Also according to them, the 980 Ti outnumbers the 380 & 390 combined and doubled (or 4x as many as the 380 by itself). Doubt it.

Click to expand...

Even if that were true and 3xx series cards are reflected in 2xx or 7xxx numbers, the overall picture won't change.

AMD needs spectacular hardware to have a fighting chance against nVidia's marketing machine. They are failing on that front for 4 generations now. nVidia landed a solid hit with Kepler and has just been piling on since.

Even if that were true and 3xx series cards are reflected in 2xx or 7xxx numbers, the overall picture won't change.

AMD needs spectacular hardware to have a fighting chance against nVidia's marketing machine. They are failing on that front for 4 generations now. nVidia landed a solid hit with Kepler and has just been piling on since.

Click to expand...

Kepler was good, but I think it was Maxwell that really put NVIDIA solidly in the lead architecturally.

It's not accurate for AMD, some of the 200-series still poll as their HD7000 counterparts. I imagine the same is true for 300 vs 200 series.
The only accurate data is to sum all of them together for a total representation, you can't look at individual GPUs.

Case in point: According to Steam, there are 24x as many GTX 970s as R9 390s. Even if we're generous to Nvidia and assume 4:1 sales over the same time period, the GTX 970 is 2 years old vs 1 year on the R9 390, which makes 8x.

Also according to them, the 980 Ti outnumbers the 380 & 390 combined and doubled (or 4x as many as the 380 by itself). Doubt it.

Click to expand...

Its very easy, just compare to the financials of the companies. It reflects what we see here. And its only getting worse as the delta between the 2 companies expand. AMD today dont even have anything performance/highend related and buyers are moving upwards in SKUs. I dont think its any secret that the Fiji series was nothing but a product that never recovered its ROI as well due to extremely low volume. AMDs installed base on steam is also dropping rather fast.

Its very easy, just compare to the financials of the companies. It reflects what we see here. And its only getting worse as the delta between the 2 companies expand. AMD today dont even have anything performance/highend related and buyers are moving upwards in SKUs. I dont think its any secret that the Fiji series was nothing but a product that never recovered its ROI as well due to extremely low volume. AMDs installed base on steam is also dropping rather fast.

Click to expand...

Actually, when I compared financials ... It does not seem to be like it.

Q4/15 AMD (ends 26 Dec 2015) vs Q4/16 nVidia (ends 25 January 2016), so very comparable periods. I will make a few assumptions:
nVidia: Taking only Gaming market revenue
AMD: Taking 50% of Computing and Graphics Revenue (under assumption, that APU and server-market basically collapsed for them in 2015, and only competitive product were GPUs)
All info from respective companies investor relations pages

Q4: AMD $235m, nVidia $810m
Full year: AMD $902m, nVidia $2,818m
In both cases, nVidia is some 3.1-3.4x higher. On revenue. And they are considered to have higher ASPs.

Also, various market reports say nVidia had some 80-85% market share in 2015. And there is this 13% "Other" in the Steam survey. I wonder whether some AMD cards can't be hiding there.

Because of this, I find it difficult to accept the fact, that there are 24x more 970s than 390s(+390X), and that there are more 980Tis than 390s and 380s combined.

Nvidia is the only company of the 2 listing Geforce separate. Even your number with AMD needs to be reduced further due to professional market, HPC etc.

Also I doubt that the GPU division is 50% of that number. I think its closer to 25%. Not to mention the division is running at a loss. I think AMD is rather selling more low end GPUs than mid/high end. But doing so in a time where people move up the SKU ladder(Specially gamers) and GPU volume decreasing isn't a sustainable way. And its not going to change. In other words, we see steam numbers because that's what the reality is.

According to those Steam numbers, nvidia may have sold more than 6 million 970s.

Click to expand...

You mean 5.25/6... Oh wait, nvm, right joke wrong place

I am also of the opinion that maxwell will remain legendary, and im quite curious as to what the source of the 'Volta will be a major change' rumor is, because all the information I've found points to Pascal and Volta being incremental improvements over Maxwell and not radical redesigns like the Fermi-Kepler and Kepler-maxwell transitions

Kepler was good, but I think it was Maxwell that really put NVIDIA solidly in the lead architecturally.

Click to expand...

Yeah, NVIDIA's market share jumped 10% after Maxwell's release and continued to grow, topping out at 82% middle of last year. They slipped to 77% last quarter. Going to be interesting to see what happens after this release cycle is done.

Does Fury include both Fury and Fury X? Since these aren't rebranded GPUs, and the "Fury" series is relatively small (compared to something like "R9 200 Series"), they will most likely be represented accurately by Steam.

The fact that the GTX 1070 has matched the Fury (and possibly combined Fury X) sales in a little over 1 month is pretty alarming. Although Fury/X were both pretty disappointing GPUs, tbh.

I'm really curious to check it out in a couple of months and see how the 480, 1070 and 1080 are doing. I'm willing to bet the 1070 will take a bigger piece of the pie than the 480. And if history repeats itself, it will probably have a bigger share than the 1060.

I'm really curious to check it out in a couple of months and see how the 480, 1070 and 1080 are doing. I'm willing to bet the 1070 will take a bigger piece of the pie than the 480. And if history repeats itself, it will probably have a bigger share than the 1060.

They are counted, but they are grouped together with R300 and R200 series.

Click to expand...

worth noting though that most people who choose to take part in the hardware survey are more likely to be relatively high end than people who don't even know what the hardware survey is.

Nvidia is the only company of the 2 listing Geforce separate. Even your number with AMD needs to be reduced further due to professional market, HPC etc.

Also I doubt that the GPU division is 50% of that number. I think its closer to 25%. Not to mention the division is running at a loss. I think AMD is rather selling more low end GPUs than mid/high end. But doing so in a time where people move up the SKU ladder(Specially gamers) and GPU volume decreasing isn't a sustainable way. And its not going to change. In other words, we see steam numbers because that's what the reality is.

Click to expand...

I'd wager it's even lower than 25%. People forget that a not insignificant portion of AMD's revenue comes from the fact that every single PS4, Xbox One, and Wii console is using AMD APU's. Claiming 50% of their revenue as sales of their GPU's for PC's is a bit unrealistic.

I'm really curious to check it out in a couple of months and see how the 480, 1070 and 1080 are doing. I'm willing to bet the 1070 will take a bigger piece of the pie than the 480. And if history repeats itself, it will probably have a bigger share than the 1060.

They are counted, but they are grouped together with R300 and R200 series.

Click to expand...

$200 GPU sales will be split among the 480 and 1060, it makes sense the 1070 will outsell both because it has no real competition.

Wrong, the survey is chosen at random, Steam randomly asks you if it can scan your system and add you to their survey, in all these years i have only been asked once, on my htpc with the 7870 2 years ago, after that it has never asked me if it can scan my current system configuration to add to the survey.

To try and say that only people with high end systems or whatever would be chosen, or only high end people would just randomly click yes = I wanna see the receipts.gif ; Tales from your anus.gif

I'd wager it's even lower than 25%. People forget that a not insignificant portion of AMD's revenue comes from the fact that every single PS4, Xbox One, and Wii console is using AMD APU's. Claiming 50% of their revenue as sales of their GPU's for PC's is a bit unrealistic.

Click to expand...

Consoles are in separate segment (Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom). And I counted only relevant segment revenue (Computing and Graphics).

Unfortunately for us, AMD lumps together CPUs, APUs and GPUs for consumer and professional markets in on segment. If you own AMD share(s) (one is enough), you might demand RTG results in greater detail on next annual general meeting. Questionable if you will get some real answer.

So see take what AMD has in that segment:
- PC CPUs and APUs - Where they are incompetitive performance-wise even with the lowest i3s (barring highly multithreaded corner cases). Forget performance/power. And price difference is not that great. Looking at Intel though, they are making 20x more (in $) compared to AMD.
- Professional GPUs - Ok, here I have no clue how FirePro fares vs. Quadro line
- Consumer GPUs purchased for coins mining - Here AMD would dominate, if it weren't for specialized ASICs
- Consumer GPUs - This is the number we are trying to get. AMD was till now performance-wise competitive except for the very top. Power was worse (at stock levels), but prices were compensating for it

Considering the above, 50% for consumer GPUs is not unrealistic. But maybe I am underestimating CPUs and APUs revenue. Even then, I would be surprised to see less than 25% revenue consumer GPUs share in that segment.